Friday, 10 November 2017

Regulatory Independence #2: CNN Put into US Regulatory Crosshairs

In yesterday’s
post we looked at the issue of regulatory independence, and how the mandate
of regulators can be manipulated and warped to serve the so-called ‘greater
good’. In that post we focused on the FCA with regards to its bending for Saudi
Aramco and the impending record-breaking IPO, but today we shall look at
something far more political. This is not to say that the FCA bending for Saudi
Aramco, in light of the impending uncertainty that is Brexit, is not a
political issue, which of course it is, but the case we are focusing on today
is particularly political and,
potentially, has incredibly wide-reaching consequences. The case in point for
this post is the news that the potential merger between AT&T and Time
Warner is being held up by the Justice Department, with the alleged sticking
point being that Time Warner (and AT&T once they merge) must sell the
company that owns CNN. Whilst this may seem inconsequential, the connection
between CNN and US President Donald Trump suggests otherwise.

The widespread reports in the media over the past few days
has focused on the claim that the US Department of Justice (DoJ) is mandating
that, for the merger to go ahead, the merged company must
agree to the sale of Turner Broadcasting, the company that controls CNN and
a number of other cable channels. Another stated instruction/option would be,
apparently, to agree to the sale of DirecTV, with concentration of power being
the identified reason for these orders. However, whilst onlookers have noted
that there are very
few legal reasons why this merger cannot proceed, and the DoJ themselves
are adamant that these reported orders are
not representative of negotiations, the whole affair is quickly developing
into something that looks like a farce but which may be much more sinister. The
DoJ are suggesting that rather than mandating the sale of CNN, Stephens
actually offered up CNN for sale, which is something he is strenuously
denying. On the back of anti-trust lawyers being forthright in their
confusion as to why there would be these types of hurdles in the first place,
with some suggesting that it would ‘at
least [be] a break in recent precedent’, the unfolding story has only been
enhanced with the introduction of the twitter account which has a permanent
place in the pages of newspapers everywhere – Donald Trump.

Since Donald Trump’s unexpected and era-defining climb to
power, he has been a constant battle with the media (or most of it, anyway).
Yet, the one he singles out most commonly is CNN, with the two entities locked
in an almost constant battle that, in reality, has very few winners. CNN’s
coverage focuses on Trump a lot, which is understandable given a. his record in
office, and b. the fact he is the President of the US, and this has caused Trump
to zero in on what he believes to be the central component of ‘fake news’ and
the ‘dishonest
media’. In his battle with CNN, he has supported videos of himself ‘wrestling’
with CNN, sharing cartoons of himself as a train
running over CNN, and essentially taking every opportunity to ‘troll’ CNN
in a concerted campaign. CNN, for their part, have been heavily criticised for
their response, which included, allegedly, attempting
to silence the creator of the wrestling meme; once again, nobody comes out
of this with any dignity at all. Yet, this latest turn of events in the
connection between Trump and CNN suggests that the laughing matter of memes and
cartoons has now been escalated, and in that escalation stands one of the
bastions of US Justice – these are developments which should cause great
concern.

It is almost useless trying to provide sources for criticism
of Donald Trump, because it is so widespread. Yet, the lowering of standards to
the lowest common denominator is facilitating the potential for potentially
irreversible actions being taken. On the same day that Trump decried
globalisation whilst Xi Jinping, fresh from consolidating his grip on China,
followed Trump’s speech directly with his unwavering support and
commitment to globalisation, the potential complicity of the DoJ in Trump’s
business has the potential to be just one of many sparks which may initiate a
lasting global power shift; it may sound exaggerated, but the question the DoJ
will have to answer, if it continues down this path, is how can it be trusted
to be fighting for justice if it does the personal bidding of the President?
Some may say that these discussions of justice and representativeness are
nothing more than ideological and fanciful endeavours, and they may be right,
but Trump has unerring capability of making things unavoidably obvious – and the
DoJ is embroiled in something that it really should not be; to be seen as the
shill for a President with incredibly low
approval ratings, and who has systematically lowered the standards in the
Superpower, is incredibly short-sighted and there must be a consequence for
that… that consequence will likely be felt in years to come when the Country
tries to repair itself from this current era, only to find that its authority
was lost. Monitoring the actions of the DoJ will be important in the continuous
examination of the potential trajectory of world power in the coming decades.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Contributions are welcome to this blog. If you would like to contribute regarding any area of financial regulation, then please feel free to email me and submit your blog entry. The content should be concerned with financial regulation, and why it matters, but this is broadly defined. The blog is open to all who are professionally concerned with financial regulation, which may range from an Undergraduate Student interested in writing on the subject, to Professors and industry participants.